TestMyVibes

Browse the worker marketplace menu

list_worker_offerings

Read-onlyIdempotent

List active worker offerings. Filter by specialty to find workers fluent in a domain (e.g. 'payments', 'i18n-japanese', 'react-spa'). Each entry includes the worker's bio, specialty tags, employment type ('external' = marketplace, 'in_house' = TMV staff), and the credit price.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`specialty`	No	Optional specialty filter — case-insensitive substring match against the worker or offering specialty tags.
`includeInHouse`	No	Whether to include TMV-staffed in-house workers (premium tier). Default true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Tool result payload (JSON object)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by detailing the output (bio, tags, employment type, price) and filter behavior, enhancing the agent's understanding of what the tool returns beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and filter capability, followed by output details. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for typical use. It covers filtering, output fields, and examples, though it omits mention of the limit parameter and pagination behavior. Still, it is adequately complete for a non-mutating listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds context for the specialty parameter with concrete examples ('payments', 'i18n-japanese'), but does not discuss limit or includeInHouse. This partially compensates for the undocumented limit parameter but does not fully cover all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'active worker offerings', and specifies filtering capability and output fields. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like list_available_jobs or list_personality_offerings by focusing on worker marketplace offerings with employment types and credit prices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (browsing available workers for hire) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Given the unique purpose among siblings, the guidance is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TestMyVibes tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools cover a wide range of functionalities, but each has a clearly distinct purpose. For example, submit_test, submit_test_batch, submit_combo, and submit_interaction_scene are all different types of submissions with unique parameters. However, the sheer number of tools (43) might cause some initial confusion, but descriptors resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_project, get_test_results). The only exception is 'whoami', which is a common idiom and does not break the pattern. Overall, naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

43 tools is on the high side for a single server. The domain is broad (testing, worker marketplace, credits, cards, feedback, video), so the count is justifiable. However, it borders on being overwhelming, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple submit_* variants).

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers core workflows like project creation, test submission, result retrieval, worker management, and credit operations. However, there are gaps: no update or delete for projects, no delete for worker offerings, and no user-facing combo editing (though combos are predefined). These are minor but noticeable.

Resources

Need Help?